SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
PRIVACY OF
COMMUNICATION AND
CORRESPONDENCE
Sec.3 Art. lll
“(1) The privacy of communication and
correspondence shall be inviolable except
upon lawful order of the court, or when
public safety or order requires otherwise as
prescribed by law.
(2) Any evidence obtained in violation of
this or the preceding section shall be
inadmissible for any purpose in any
proceeding. ”]
Inviolability.
Exceptions:
(a) Lawful order of the court; or
(b) When public safety or order requires
otherwise, as may be provided by law.
The guarantee includes within the mantle
of its protection tangible, as well as
intangible, objects. Read R.A. 4200 [Anti-
Wire-Tapping Act],
IS THERE A CONSTITUTIONALLY
GUARANTEED ROGHT TO PRIVACY?
ANS – No specific guarantee but the
constitution provides for several zones of
privacy like
FRAPPUCI- NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM
"We don’t measure a man’s success by how high he climbs BUT how high he BOUNCES when
he hits rock bottom."
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER
Section 2 – Right against unreasonable
searches and seizure
Section 3 – Privacy of communication and
Correspondence
Section 8 – Right to Form Association
Section 6 – Liberty of Abode and travel
Section 17 – Right Against Self
Incrimination
WHAT ARE THE TWO CATEGORIES OF
RIGHT TO PRIVACY?
ANS - (1) DECISIONAL - means the
independence in making certain
important decisions.
(2) INFORMATIONAL – Interest in
avoiding of disclosure of personal matters
as enunciated in the case of DISINI vs SOJ
In Ramirez v. Court of Appeals, 248
SCRA 590, it was held that R.A. 4200
clearly and unequivocally makes it illegal
for any person, not authorized by all the
parties to any private communication, to
secretly record such communications by
means of a tape recorder. The law does
not make any distinction.
In Gaanan v. Intermediate Appellate
Court, 145 SCRA 112, it was held that a
telephone extension was not among the
devices covered by this law.
The right may be invoked against the wife
who went to the clinic of
her husband
and there took documents consisting of
private communications between her
| DE TORRES, RECHEL
Page | 1
 SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

husband and his alleged paramour
[Zulueta v. Court of Appeals 253 SCRA
699]. "
However, in Waterous Drug Corporation
v. NLRC, G.R. No. 113271, October 16,
1997, the Supreme Court said that the Bill
of Rights does not protect citizens from
unreasonable searches and seizures made
by private individuals. In this case, an
officer of the petitioner corporation
opened an envelope addressed to the
private respondent and found therein a
check evidencing an overprice in the
purchase of medicine. Despite the lack of
consent on the part of the private
respondent, the check was deemed
admissible in evidence.
Ramirez vs. CA
Violation even if recording is made by
party to private communication. “Any” –
section 1, RA 4200.
Q: Is there any difference between
communication and conversation?
A: Same. Synonymous –etymology.
DOCTRINE:
authorized by all the parties to any
private communication to secretly record
such communication by means of a tape
recorder.
The law makes no distinction as to
whether the party sought to be penalized
by the statute ought to be a party other
than or different from those involved in
the private communication. The statute's
intent to penalize all persons
unauthorized to make such recording is
underscored by the use of the qualifier
"any". Consequently, as respondent Court
of Appeals correctly concluded, "even a
(person) privy to a communication who
records his private conversation with
another without the knowledge of the
latter (will) qualify as a violator" under
this provision of R.A. 4200.
A perusal of the Senate Congressional
Records, moreover, supports the
respondent court' conclusion that in
enacting R.A. 4200 our lawmakers indeed
contemplated to make illegal
unauthorized tape recording of private
conversations or communications taken
either by the parties themselves or by
third persons. Thus:

Ramirez vs. Court of Appeals [G.R. No. Senator Tañada: The qualified only
93833, September 28, 1995] 'overhear'.

REPUBLIC ACT NO. 4200 MAY BE Senator Padilla: So that when it is

VIOLATED EVEN BY A PARTY TO THE intercepted or recorded; the element of
COMMUNICATION. The aforestated secrecy would not appear to be material.
provision clearly and unequivocally Now, suppose, Your Honor, the recording
makes it illegal for any person, not is not made by all the parties but some
FRAPPUCI- NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM
"We don’t measure a man’s success by how high he climbs BUT how high he BOUNCES when
he hits rock bottom."

SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DE TORRES, RECHEL

Page | 2
 SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
parties and involved not criminal cases
that would be mentioned under section 3
but would cover, for example civil cases
or special proceedings whereby a
recording is made not necessarily by all
the parties but perhaps by some in an
effort to show the intent of the parties
because the actuation of the parties prior,
simultaneous even subsequent to the
contract or the act may be indicative of
their intention. Suppose there is such a
recording, would you say, Your Honor,
that the intention is to cover it within the
purview of this bill or outside?'
Senator Tañada: That is covered by the
purview of this bill, Your Honor.
Senator Padilla: Even if the record should
be used not in the prosecution of offense
but as evidence to be used in Civil Cases
or special proceedings?
Senator Tañada: That is right. This is a
complete ban on tape recorded
conversations taken without the
authorization of all the parties.
Senator Padilla: Now, would that be
reasonable. Your Honor?
Senator Tañada: I believe it is reasonable
because it is not sporting to record the
observation of one without his knowing it
and then using it against him. It is not fair,
it is not sportsmanlike. If the purpose;
Your honor, is to record the intention of
the parties. I believe that all the parties
should know that the observations are
being recorded.
FRAPPUCI- NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM
"We don’t measure a man’s success by how high he climbs BUT how high he BOUNCES when
he hits rock bottom."
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER
Senator Padilla: This might reduce the
utility of records.
Senator Tañada: Well no. For example, I
was to say that in meetings of the board of
directors where a tape recording is taken,
there is no objection to this if all the
parties know. It is but fair that the people
whose remarks and observations are
being made should know that these are
being recorded.
Senator Padilla: Now, I can understand.
Senator Tañada: That is why when we
take statements of persons, we say:
"Please be informed that whatever you
say here may be used against you." That is
fairness and that is what we demand.
Now, in spite of that warning, he makes
damaging statements against his own
interest, well, he cannot complain any
more. But if you are going to take a
recording of the observations and
remarks of a person without him knowing
that it is being taped or recorded, without
him knowing that what is being recorded
may be used against him, I think it is
unfair.
Senator Diokno: Do you understand. Mr.
Senator, that under Section 1 of the bill as
now worded, if a party secretly records a
public speech, he would be penalized
under Section l? Because the speech is
public, but the recording is done secretly.
| DE TORRES, RECHEL
Page | 3
 SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

Senator Tañada: Well, that particular
aspect is not contemplated by the bill. It is
the communication between one person
and another person — not between a
speaker and a public. The unambiguity of
the express words of the provision, taken
together with the above-quoted
deliberations from the Congressional
Record, therefore plainly supports the
view held by the respondent court that
the provision seeks to penalize even those
privy to the private communications.
Where the law makes no distinctions, one
does not distinguish.
RAMIREZ vs. CA
G.R. No. 93833, September 28, 1995
FACTS:
A civil case for damages was filed by
petitioner Socorro D. Ramirez in the
Regional Trial Court of Quezon City
alleging that the private respondent, Ester
S. Garcia, in a confrontation in the latter's
office, allegedly vexed, insulted and
humiliated her in a "hostile and furious
mood" and in a manner offensive to
petitioner's dignity and personality,"
contrary to morals, good customs and
public policy."
In support of her claim, petitioner
produced a verbatim transcript of the
event and sought moral damages,
attorney's fees and other expenses of
litigation in the amount of P610,000.00, in
addition to costs, interests and other
FRAPPUCI- NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM
"We don’t measure a man’s success by how high he climbs BUT how high he BOUNCES when
he hits rock bottom."
reliefs awardable at the trial court's
discretion. The transcript on which the
civil case was based was culled from a
tape recording of the confrontation made
by petitioner. (Conversation attached
below)
As a result of petitioner's recording of the
event and alleging that the said act of
secretly taping the confrontation was
illegal, private respondent filed a criminal
case before the Regional Trial Court of
Pasay City for violation of Republic Act
4200, Petitioner filed a Motion to Quash
the Information on the ground that the
facts charged do not constitute an offense,
particularly a violation of R.A. 4200. In an
order May 3, 1989, the trial court granted
the Motion to Quash, agreeing with
petitioner that 1) the facts charged do not
constitute an offense under R.A. 4200;
and that 2) the violation punished by R.A.
4200 refers to a the taping of a
communication by a person other than a
participant to the communication.
Private respondent filed a Petition for
Review on Certiorari with SC, which
forthwith referred the case to the CA. CA
promulgated its assailed Decision
declaring the trial court's order is null and
void. Petitioner filed a Motion for
Reconsideration which CA denied. Hence,
this petition.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the applicable provision
of Republic Act 4200 does not apply to the

SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DE TORRES, RECHEL

Page | 4
 SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

taping of a private conversation by one of statute ought to be a party other than

the parties to the conversation.
HELD:
First, legislative intent is determined
principally from the language of a statute.
Where the language of a statute is clear
and unambiguous, the law is applied
according to its express terms, and
interpretation would be resorted to only
where a literal interpretation would be
either impossible or absurd or would lead
to an injustice. Section 1 of R.A. 4200
entitled, " An Act to Prohibit and Penalized
Wire Tapping and Other Related Violations
of Private
Communication and Other Purposes,"
provides:
Sec. 1. It shall be unlawful for any person,
not being authorized by all the parties to
any private communication or spoken
word, to tap any wire or cable, or by using
any other device or arrangement, to
secretly overhear, intercept, or record
such communication or spoken word by
using a device commonly known as a
Dictaphone or dictagraph or
detectaphone or walkie-talkie or tape
recorder, or however otherwise described.
The aforestated provision clearly and
unequivocally makes it illegal for any
person, not authorized by all the parties
to any private communication to
secretly record such communication by
means of a tape recorder. The law
makes no distinction as to whether the
party sought to be penalized by the
FRAPPUCI- NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM
"We don’t measure a man’s success by how high he climbs BUT how high he BOUNCES when
he hits rock bottom."
or different from those involved in the
private communication.
The statute's intent to penalize all
persons unauthorized to make such
recording is underscored by the use of the
qualifier "any". Consequently, as
respondent Court of Appeals correctly
concluded, "even a (person) privy to a
communication who records his private
conversation with another without the
knowledge of the latter (will) qualify as a
violator" under this provision of R.A. 4200.
A perusal of the Senate Congressional
Records, moreover, supports the
respondent court's conclusion that in
enacting R.A. 4200 our lawmakers
indeed contemplated to make illegal,
unauthorized tape recording of private
conversations or communications taken
either by the parties themselves or by
third persons.
The unambiguity of the express words of
the provision, taken together with the
deliberations from the Congressional
Record, therefore plainly supports the
view held by the respondent court that
the provision seeks to penalize even those
privy to the private communications.
Where the law makes no distinctions,
one does not distinguish.
Second, the nature of the conversations is
immaterial to a violation of the statute.
The substance of the same need not be
specifically alleged in the information.

SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DE TORRES, RECHEL

Page | 5
 SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

What R.A. 4200 penalizes are the acts of
secretly overhearing, intercepting or
recording private communications by
means of the devices enumerated therein.
The mere allegation that an individual
made a secret recording of a private
communication by means of a tape
recorder would suffice to constitute an
offense under Section 1 of R.A. 4200.
Finally, petitioner's contention that the
phrase "private communication" in
Section 1 of R.A. 4200 does not include
"private conversations" narrows the
ordinary meaning of the word
"communication" to a point of absurdity.
The word COMMUNICATE comes from the
latin signification, communication
connotes the act of sharing or imparting
signification, , as in a CONVERSATION, or
signifies the "process by which meanings
or thoughts are shared between
individuals through a common system
of symbols (as language signs or
gestures)".
These definitions are broad enough to
include verbal or nonverbal, written or
expressive communications of
"meanings or thoughts" which are likely
to include the emotionally-charged
exchange, on February 22, 1988,
between petitioner and private
respondent, in the privacy of the latter's
office. Any doubts about the legislative
body's meaning of the phrase "private
communication" are, furthermore, put
to rest by the fact that the terms
"conversation" and "communication"
FRAPPUCI- NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM
"We don’t measure a man’s success by how high he climbs BUT how high he BOUNCES when
he hits rock bottom."
were interchangeably used by Senator
Tañada in his Explanatory Note to the
bill quoted below:
It has been said that innocent people have
nothing to fear from their conversations
being overheard. Bu t this statement
ignores the usual nature of conversations
as well the undeniable fact that most , if
not all, civilized people have some aspects
of their lives they do not wish to expose.
Free conversations are often
characterized by exaggerations, obscenity,
agreeable falsehoods, and the expression
of antisocial desires of views not intended
to be taken seriously.
The right to the privacy of
communication , among others, has
expressly been assured by our
Constitution. Needless to state here, the
framers of our Constitution must have
recognized the nature of conversations
between individuals and the significance
of man's spiritual nature, of his feelings
and of his intellect. They must have
known that part of the pleasures and
satisfactions of life are to be found in the
unaudited, and free exchange of
communication between individuals —
free from every unjustifiable intrusion by
whatever means .
In Gaanan vs. Intermediate Appellate Court,
a case which dealt with the issue of
telephone wiretapping, we held that the
use of a telephone extension for the
purpose of overhearing a private
conversation without authorization did

SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DE TORRES, RECHEL

Page | 6
 SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

not violate R.A. 4200 because a sa 'yo, nag-aaply ka sa States, nag-aaply ka

telephone extension devise was neither
among those "device(s) or
arrangement(s)" enumerated therein ,
following the principle that "penal
statutes must be construed strictly in
favor of the accused."
The instant case turns on a different note,
because the applicable facts and
circumstances pointing to a violation of R.A.
4200 suffer from no ambiguity, and the
statute itself explicitly mentions the
unauthorized "recording" of private
communications with the use of tape-
recorders as among the acts punishable.
sa review mo, kung kakailanganin ang
certification mo, kalimutan mo na kasi
hindi ka sa akin makakahingi.
CHUCHI — Hindi M'am. Kasi ang ano ko
talaga noon i-cocontinue ko up to 10:00
p.m.
ESG — Bastos ka, nakalimutan mo na
kung paano ka pumasok dito sa hotel.
Magsumbong ka sa Union kung gusto mo.
Nakalimutan mo na kung paano ka
nakapasok dito "Do you think that on
your own makakapasok ka kung hindi ako.
Panunumbyoyan na kita (Sinusumbatan
na kita).

CONVERSATION: CHUCHI — Itutuloy ko na M'am sana ang

Plaintiff Soccoro D. Ramirez (Chuchi) —
Good Afternoon M'am. Defendant Ester S.
Garcia
(ESG) — Ano ba ang nangyari sa 'yo,
nakalimot ka na kung paano ka napunta
rito, porke member ka na, magsumbong
ka kung ano ang gagawin ko sa 'yo.
CHUCHI — Kasi, naka duty ako noon.
duty ko.
ESG — Kaso ilang beses na akong
binabalikan doon ng mga no (sic) ko.
ESG — Nakalimutan mo na ba kung paano
ka pumasok sa hotel, kung on your own
merit alam ko naman kung gaano ka "ka
bobo" mo. Marami ang nag-aaply alam
kong hindi ka papasa.

ESG — Tapos iniwan no. (Sic) CHUCHI — Kumuha kami ng exam noon.

CHUCHI — Hindi m'am, pero ilan beses na ESG — Oo, pero hindi ka papasa.
nila akong binalikan, sabing ganoon —
CHUCHI — Eh, bakit ako ang nakuha ni Dr.
ESG — Ito and (sic) masasabi ko sa 'yo, Tamayo
ayaw kung (sic) mag explain ka, kasi
hanggang 10:00 p.m., kinabukasan hindi ESG — Kukunin ka kasi ako.
ka na pumasok. Ngayon ako ang babalik
FRAPPUCI- NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM
"We don’t measure a man’s success by how high he climbs BUT how high he BOUNCES when
he hits rock bottom."

SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DE TORRES, RECHEL

Page | 7
 SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

CHUCHI — Eh, di sana —

ESG — Huwag mong ipagmalaki na may Zulueta vs. CA

utak ka kasi wala kang utak. Akala mo ba
makukuha ka dito kung hindi ako.
CHUCHI — Mag-eexplain ako.
ESG — Huwag na, hindi ako mag-papa-
explain sa 'yo, makaalala ka kung paano
ka puma-rito. "Putang-ina" sasabi-sabihin
mo kamag-anak ng nanay at tatay mo ang
mga magulang ko.
Q: Are pictures guaranteed under
Section 3? Are they correspondence?
A:
Q: What is the difference between
privacy under Section 2 and Section 3?
A: Privacy of papers under Section 2
cannot be applied against private
intrusions. Section 3 extends even to
private intrusions.

ESG — Wala na akong pakialam, dahil Q: What if in Marti, there is letter

nandito ka sa loob, nasa labas ka puwede
ka ng hindi pumasok, okey yan nasaloob
ka umalis ka doon.
CHUCHI — Kasi M'am, binbalikan ako ng
mga taga Union.
ESG — Nandiyan na rin ako, pero huwag
mong kalimutan na hindi ka makakapasok
kung hindi ako. Kung hindi mo kinikilala
yan okey lang sa akin, dahil tapos ka na.
CHUCHI — Ina-ano ko m'am na utang na
loob.ESG — Huwag na lang, hindi mo
utang na loob, kasi kung baga sa no,
nilapastangan mo ako.
CHUCHI — Paano kita nilapastanganan?
ESG — Mabuti pa lumabas ka na. Hindi na
ako makikipagusap sa 'yo. Lumabas ka na.
Magsumbong ka.
containing information as to the
disposition of hashish, admissible?
A: If contents of letter, apply Section 3. If
letter in itself (as an object evidence),
apply Section 2.
Q: What are the Constitutional
provisions and laws which create
zones of privacy?
A: Sections 1, 2, 3(1), 6, 8 and 17, Art. III
of Constitution. In addition, NCC, RPC, SPL
like Anti-Wiretapping and Secrecy of
Bank Deposits Act and RoC. (Ople vs.
Torres)
RA 4200
Q: What defines the character of
communication?
A: (1) Place and (2) presence or absence
of other people. Controlling factor: Intent
of parties. Majority if larger group, both if
there are parties. Marami. Depende sa
circumstances.

FRAPPUCI- NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

"We don’t measure a man’s success by how high he climbs BUT how high he BOUNCES when
he hits rock bottom."

SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DE TORRES, RECHEL

Page | 8
 SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

Q. RECONCILE PEOPLE VS MARTI and [from a] court or when public safety or

ZULUETA VS COURT OF APPEALS order requires otherwise, as prescribed
by law."

Any violation of this provision renders the

ANS – In the case of Marti, Bill of Rights
evidence obtained inadmissible "for any
cannot be invoked against acts of private
purpose in any proceeding." The
individuals. In the Case of Zulueta, the
intimacies between husband and wife do
right to privacy is upheld. In the case of
Marti, It is object evidence while in the not justify any one of them in breaking
case of Zulueta, it is documentary the drawers and cabinets of the other and
in ransacking them for any telltale
evidence.
evidence of marital infidelity. A person, by
contracting marriage, does not shed
his/her integrity or his right to privacy as
DOCTRINE: an individual and the constitutional
protection is ever available to him or to
Zulueta vs. Court of Appeals [G.R. No.
her.
107383, February 20, 1996]
The law insures absolute freedom of
A PERSON BY CONTRACTING
communication between the spouses by
MARRIAGE DOES NOT SHED HIS making it privileged. Neither husband nor
INTEGRITY OR HIS
wife may testify for or against the other
RIGHT TO PRIVACY AS AN INDIVIDUAL
without the consent of the affected spouse
AND THE CONSTITUTIONAL
while the marriage subsists. Neither may
PROTECTION
be examined without the consent of the
IS EVER AVAILABLE TO HIM EVEN
other as to any communication received
AFTER MARRIAGE. — Indeed the
in confidence by one from the other
documents and papers in question are
during the marriage, save for specified
inadmissible in evidence. The
exceptions. But one thing is freedom of
constitutional injunction declaring "the
communication; quite another is a
privacy of communication and
compulsion for each one to share what
correspondence [to be] inviolable" is no
one knows with the other. And this has
less applicable simply because it is the
nothing to do with the duty of fidelity that
wife (who thinks herself aggrieved by her
each owes to the other.
husband's infidelity) who is the party
against whom the constitutional
provision is to be enforced. The only
exception to the prohibition in the
ZULUETA VS COURT OF APPEALS
Constitution is if there is a "lawful order

FRAPPUCI- NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

"We don’t measure a man’s success by how high he climbs BUT how high he BOUNCES when
he hits rock bottom."

SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DE TORRES, RECHEL

Page | 9
 SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

(G.R. No. 107838, February 20, 1996)
Mendoza, J.,
FACTS: Cecilia Zulueta is the wife of
Alfredo Martin. On March 26, 1982,
Cecilia entered the clinic of her husband, a
doctor of medicine, and in the presence of
her mother, a driver and private
respondent's secretary, forcibly opened
the drawers and cabinet in her husband's
clinic and took 157 documents consisting
of private correspondence between Dr.
Martin and his alleged paramours,
greetings cards, cancelled checks, diaries,
Dr. Martin's passport, and photographs.
The documents and papers were seized for
use in evidence in a case for legal
separation and for disqualification from
the practice of medicine which petitioner
had filed
against her husband. Dr. Martin, hence
brought an action for the recovery of the
documents and papers and for damages
against Cecilia. The trial court rendered
its judgment declaring Dr. Martin as the
capital/exclusive owner of the said
properties. The Court of Appeals affirmed
the decision of the trial court.
ISSUE: Whether or not the documents
and papers seized by Cecilia are
admissible in evidence against Dr. Martin.
HELD: NO. The documents and papers in
question are inadmissible in evidence.
The constitutional injunction declaring
"the privacy of communication and
correspondence [to be] inviolable" is no
FRAPPUCI- NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM
"We don’t measure a man’s success by how high he climbs BUT how high he BOUNCES when
he hits rock bottom."
less applicable simply because it is the wife
(who thinks herself aggrieved by her
husband's infidelity) who is the party
against whom the constitutional provision
is to be enforced. The only exception to
the prohibition in the Constitution is if
there is a "lawful order [from a] court
or when public safety or order requires
otherwise, as prescribed by law." Any
violation of this provision renders the
evidence obtained inadmissible "for any
purpose in any proceeding."
The intimacies between husband and wife
do not justify any one of them in breaking
the drawers and cabinets of the other and
in ransacking them for any telltale
evidence of marital infidelity. A person, by
contracting marriage, does not shed
his/her integrity or his right to privacy as
an individual and the constitutional
protection is ever available to him or to
her.
The law insures absolute freedom of
communication between the spouses by
making it privileged. Neither husband nor
wife may testify for or against the other
without the consent of the affected spouse
while the marriage subsists. Neither may
be examined without the consent of the
other as to any communication received in
confidence by one from the other during
the marriage, save for specified exceptions.
But one thing is freedom of
communication; quite another is a
compulsion for each one to share what
one knows with the other . And this has

SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DE TORRES, RECHEL

Page | 10
 SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
nothing to do with the duty of fidelity that
each owes to the other.
Navarro vs. CA
Police precinct – public place?
DOCTRINE
Navarro vs. Court of Appeals [G.R. No.
121087, August 26, 1999]
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 4200 PROTECTS
COMMUNICATIONS WHICH ARE
INTENDED TO
BE PRIVATE. Thus, the law prohibits
the overhearing, intercepting, or
recording of
private communications. Since the
exchange between petitioner Navarro and
Lingan was not private, its tape recording
is not prohibited.
Indeed, Jalbuena’s testimony is confirmed
by the voice recording he had made. It
may be asked whether the tape is
admissible in view of R.A. No. 4200, which
prohibits wire tapping. The answer is in
the affirmative. The law provides:
SECTION 1. It shall be unlawful for any
person, not being authorized by all the
parties to any private communication or
spoken word, to tap any wire or cable, or
by using any other device or arrangement,
to secretly overhear, intercept, or record
such communication or spoken word by
using a device commonly known as a
dictaphone or dictagraph or detectaphone
FRAPPUCI- NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM
"We don’t measure a man’s success by how high he climbs BUT how high he BOUNCES when
he hits rock bottom."
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER
or walkie-talkie or tape-recorder, or
however otherwise described:
It shall also be unlawful for any person, be
he a participant or not in the act or acts
penalized in the next preceding sentence,
to knowingly possess any tape record,
wire record, disc record, or any other
such record, or copies thereof, of any
communication or spoken word secured
either before or after the effective date of
this Act in the manner prohibited by this
law; or to replay the same for any other
person or persons; or to communicate the
contents thereof, either verbally or in
writing, or to furnish transcriptions
thereof, whether complete or partial, to
any other person: Provided, That the use
of such record or any copies thereof as
evidence in any civil, criminal
investigation or trial of offenses
mentioned in section 3 hereof, shall not
be covered by this prohibition.
SECTION 4. Any communication or
spoken word, or the existence, contents,
substance, purport, effect, or meaning of
the same or any part thereof, or any
information therein contained obtained
or secured by any person in violation of
the preceding sections of this Act shall not
be admissible in evidence in any judicial,
quasi-judicial, legislative or
administrative hearing or investigation.
NAVARRO vs COURT OF APPEALS
| DE TORRES, RECHEL
Page | 11
 SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

G.R. No. 121087, August 26,
1999,MENDOZA, J.
Facts:
Stanley Jalbuena and Enrique Ike Lingan,
who were reporters of the radio station
together with one Mario Ilagan, went to
the Entertainment City following reports
that it was showing nude dancers. After
the three had seated themselves at a table
and ordered beer, a scantily clad dancer
appeared on stage and began to perform a
strip act. As she removed her brassieres,
Jalbuena brought out his camera and took
a picture. This called the attention of
Dante Liquin, the floor manager, who
together with a security guard, Alex Sioco,
approached Jalbuena and demanded to
know why he took a picture which
resulted to a heated argument. When
Jalbuena saw that Sioco was about to pull
out his gun, he ran out of the joint
followed by his companions.
They went to the police station to report
the matter. In a while, Liquin and Sioco
arrived on a motorcycle who were met by
petitioner Navarro who talked with them
in a corner for around fifteen minutes.
Afterwards, petitioner Navarro turned to
Jalbuena and, pushing him to the wall,
cursed him. Petitioner Navarro then
pulled out his firearm and cocked it, and,
pressing it on the face of Jalbuena. At this
point, Lingan intervened. The two then
had a heated exchange.
As Lingan was about to turn away,
petitioner Navarro hit him with the
FRAPPUCI- NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM
"We don’t measure a man’s success by how high he climbs BUT how high he BOUNCES when
he hits rock bottom."
handle of his pistol. Lingan fell on the
floor, blood flowing down his face. He
tried to get up, but petitioner Navarro
gave him a fist blow on the forehead
which floored him. Unknown to petitioner
Navarro, Jalbuena was able to record on
tape the exchange between petitioner and
the deceased. This was submitted as
evidence.
Issue:
Whether or not the tape is admissible as
evidence in view of RA 4200 which
prohibit wire tapping?
Held: YES. Sec. 1 of RA 4200 provides that
“ It shall also be unlawful for any person,
be he a participant or not in the act or acts
penalized in the next preceding sentence
to knowingly possess any tape record,
wire record, disc record, or any other
such record, or copies thereof, of any
communication or spoken word secured
either before or after the effective date of
this Act in the manner prohibited by this
law; or to replay the same for any other
person or persons; or to communicate the
contents thereof, either verbally or in
writing, or to furnish transcriptions
thereof, whether complete or partial, to
any other person: Provided, That the use
of such record or any copies thereof as
evidence in any civil, criminal
investigation or trial of offenses
mentioned in section 3 hereof, shall not
be covered by this prohibition The law
prohibits the overhearing, intercepting, or
recording of PRIVATE
COMMUNICATIONS . Since the exchange

SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DE TORRES, RECHEL

Page | 12
 SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

between petitioner Navarro and Lingan
was not private, its tape recording is
not prohibited. Nor is there any question
that it was duly authenticated. A voice
recording is authenticated by the
testimony of a witness
(1) that he personally recorded the
conversation;
(2) that the tape played in court was the
one he recorded; and
(3) that the voices on the tape are those of
the persons such are claimed to belong.
Ople vs. Torres
Q: Is there such an animal as
constitutional right to privacy?
A: Yes. Griswold vs. Connecticut speaks
about “zones of privacy”. Constitutional
provisions which recognize zones of
privac: Sections 1, 2, 3(1), 6, 8 and 17.
Q: Respondent argues there is a
reasonable expectation of privacy in
AO 308.
A: SC answered there are 2 tests…..
1. Whether by his conduct, he has shown
an expectation of privacy
2. Whether this expectation is one which
the society recognizes as reasonable.
WHAT ARE THE TEST TO DETERMINE
THE REASONABLENESS OF A PERSON’S
EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY?
Ans – In the case of Ople vs Torres, it was
stated that there are factors to consider
like customs, physical surroundings, and
practices of a specific activity.
DOCTRINE:
Ople vs. Torres [G.R. No. 127685, July
23, 1998]
THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY IS A
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT. Assuming,
arguendo, that A.O. No. 308 need not be
the subject of a law, still it cannot pass
constitutional muster as an
administrative legislation because facially
it violates the right to privacy. The
essence of privacy is the "right to be let
alone." In the 1965 case of Griswold v.
Connecticut, the United States Supreme
Court gave more substance to the right of
privacy when it ruled that the right has a
constitutional foundation. It held that
there is a right of privacy which can be
found within the penumbras of the
First, Third, Fourth, Fifth and Ninth
Amendments:
"Specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights
have penumbras formed by emanations
from these guarantees that help give them
life and substance . . . Various guarantees
create zones of privacy. The right of
association contained in the penumbra of
the First Amendment is one, as we have
seen.

FRAPPUCI- NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

"We don’t measure a man’s success by how high he climbs BUT how high he BOUNCES when
he hits rock bottom."

SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DE TORRES, RECHEL

Page | 13
 SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

The Third Amendment in its prohibition So it is likewise in our jurisdiction. The

against the quartering of soldiers 'in any
house' in time of peace without the
consent of the owner is another facet of
that privacy. The Fourth Amendment
explicitly affirms the 'right of the people
to be secure in their persons, houses,
papers, and effects, against unreasonable
searches and seizures.' The Fifth
Amendment in its Self-Incrimination
Clause enables the citizen to create a zone
of privacy which government may not
force him to surrender to his detriment.
The Ninth Amendment provides: 'The
enumeration in the Constitution, of
certain rights, shall not be construed to
deny or disparage others retained by the
people.'"
In the 1968 case of Morfe v. Mutuc, we
adopted the Griswold ruling that there is
a constitutional right to privacy. Speaking
thru Mr. Justice, later Chief Justice,
Enrique
Fernando, we held:
right to privacy as such is accorded
recognition independently of its
identification with liberty; in itself, it is
fully deserving of constitutional
protection. The language of Prof. Emerson
is particularly apt: 'The concept of limited
government has always included the idea
that governmental powers stop short of
certain intrusions into the personal life of
the citizen. This is indeed one of the basic
distinctions between absolute and limited
government. Ultimate and pervasive
control of the individual, in all aspects of
his life, is the hallmark of the absolute
state. In contrast, a system of limited
government safeguards a private sector,
which belongs to the individual, firmly
distinguishing it from the public sector,
which the state can control. Protection of
this private sector — protection, in other
words, of the dignity and integrity of the
individual — has become increasingly
important as modern society has
developed.

The Griswold case invalidated a All the forces of a technological age —

Connecticut statute which made the use of industrialization, urbanization, and
contraceptives a criminal offense on the organization — operate to narrow the
ground of its amounting to an area of privacy and facilitate intrusion
unconstitutional invasion of the right of into it.
privacy of married persons; rightfully it
stressed "a relationship lying within the In modern terms, the capacity to maintain
zone of privacy created by several and support this enclave of private life
fundamental constitutional guarantees." It marks the difference between a
has wider implications though. The democratic and a totalitarian society.'"
constitutional right to privacy has come
into its own. Indeed, if we extend our judicial gaze we
will find that the right of privacy is
FRAPPUCI- NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM
"We don’t measure a man’s success by how high he climbs BUT how high he BOUNCES when
he hits rock bottom."

SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DE TORRES, RECHEL

Page | 14
 SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

recognized and enshrined in several national security, public safety, or

provisions of our Constitution. It is
expressly recognized in Section 3(1) of
the Bill of Rights: "Sec. 3. (1) The privacy
of communication and correspondence
shall be inviolable except upon lawful
order of the court, or when public safety
or order requires otherwise as prescribed
by law."
Other facets of the right to privacy are
protected in various provisions of the Bill
of Rights, viz: "Sec. 1. No person shall be
deprived of life, liberty, or property
without due process of law, nor shall any
person be denied the equal protection of
the laws.
Sec. 2. The right of the people to be
secure in their persons, houses, papers,
and effects against unreasonable
searches and seizures of whatever
nature and for any purpose shall be
inviolable, and no search warrant or
warrant of arrest shall issue except
upon probable cause to be determined
personally by the judge after
examination under oath or affirmation
of the complainant and the witnesses he
may produce, and particularly
describing the place to be searched and
the persons or things to be seized.
Sec. 6. The liberty of abode and of
changing the same within the limits
prescribed by law shall not be impaired
except upon lawful order of the court.
Neither shall the right to travel be
impaired except in the interest of
FRAPPUCI- NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM
"We don’t measure a man’s success by how high he climbs BUT how high he BOUNCES when
he hits rock bottom."
public health, as may be provided by
law.
Sec. 8. The right of the people, including
those employed in the public and
private sectors, to form unions,
associations, or societies for purposes
not contrary to law shall not be
abridged.
Sec. 17. No person shall be compelled to
be a witness against himself."
Zones of privacy are likewise recognized
and protected in our laws. The Civil Code
provides that "[e]very person shall
respect the dignity, personality, privacy
and peace of mind of his neighbors and
other persons" and punishes as
actionable torts several acts by a person
of meddling and prying into the privacy of
another. It also holds a public officer or
employee or any private individual liable
for damages for any violation of the rights
and liberties of another person, and
recognizes the privacy of letters and other
private communications. The Revised
Penal Code makes a crime the violation of
secrets by an officer, the revelation of
trade and industrial secrets, and trespass
to dwelling.
Invasion of privacy is an offense in special
laws like the Anti-Wiretapping Law, the
Secrecy of Bank Deposits Act and the
Intellectual Property Code. The Rules of
Court on privileged communication

SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DE TORRES, RECHEL

Page | 15
 SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

likewise recognize the privacy of certain cannot countenance such a laidback

information.
Unlike the dissenters, we prescind from
the premise that the right to privacy is a
fundamental right guaranteed by the
Constitution, hence, it is the burden of
government to show that A.O. No. 308 is
justified by some compelling state
interest and that it is narrowly drawn. A.O.
No. 308 is predicated on two
considerations:
(1) the need to provide our citizens
and foreigners with the facility to
conveniently transact business
with basic service and social
security providers and other
government instrumentalities and
(2) the need to reduce, if not totally
eradicate, fraudulent transactions
and misrepresentations by
persons seeking basic services.
It is debatable whether these interests are
compelling enough to warrant the
issuance of A.O. No. 308. But what is not
arguable is the broadness, the vagueness,
the overbreadth of A.O. No. 308 which if
implemented will put our people's right
to privacy in clear and present danger.
TESTS IN DETERMINING THE
REASONABLE OF EXPECTANCY OF
PRIVACY. Though A.O. No. 308 is
undoubtedly not narrowly drawn, the
dissenting opinions would dismiss its
danger to the right to privacy as
speculative and hypothetical. Again, we
FRAPPUCI- NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM
"We don’t measure a man’s success by how high he climbs BUT how high he BOUNCES when
he hits rock bottom."
posture. The Court will not be true to its
role as the ultimate guardian of the
people's liberty if it would not
immediately smother the sparks that
endanger their rights but would rather
wait for the fire that could consume them.
We reject the argument of the Solicitor
General that an individual has a
reasonable expectation of privacy with
regard to the National ID and the use of
biometrics technology as it stands on
quicksand. The reasonableness of a
person's expectation of privacy depends
on a two-part test:
(1) whether by his conduct, the individual
has exhibited an expectation of privacy;
and
(2) whether this expectation is one that
society recognizes as reasonable.
The factual circumstances of the case
determines the reasonableness of the
expectation. However, other factors, such
as customs, physical surroundings and
practices of a particular activity, may
serve to create or diminish this
expectation. The use of biometrics and
computer technology in A.O. No. 308 does
not assure the individual of a reasonable
expectation of privacy. As technology
advances, the level of reasonably
expected privacy decreases. The measure
of protection granted by the reasonable
expectation diminishes as relevant
technology becomes more widely
accepted. The security of the computer

SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DE TORRES, RECHEL

Page | 16
 SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

data file depends not only on the physical
inaccessibility of the file but also on the
advances in hardware and software
computer technology. A.O. No. 308 is so
widely drawn that a minimum standard
for a reasonable expectation of privacy,
regardless of technology used, cannot be
inferred from its provisions.
OPLE v. TORRES
G.R. No. 127685; July 23, 1998; Puno, J.
FACTS:
Petitioner Blas Ople prays that the SC
invalidate Administrative Order No. 308
entitled "Adoption of a National
Computerized Identification Reference
System" on two important constitutional
grounds: one, it is a usurpation of the
power of Congress to legislate, and two, it
impermissibly intrudes on our citizenry's
protected zone of privacy.
ISSUE:
Whether AO 308 violates the
constitutionally mandated right to privacy
HELD. Yes. Assuming, arguendo, that
A.O. No. 308 need not be the subject of a
law, still it cannot pass constitutional
muster as an administrative legislation
because facially it violates the right to
privacy. The essence of privacy is the
"right to be let alone."
The SC prescinds from the premise that
the right to privacy is a fundamental
right guaranteed by the Constitution,
FRAPPUCI- NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM
"We don’t measure a man’s success by how high he climbs BUT how high he BOUNCES when
he hits rock bottom."
hence, it is the burden of government to
show that A.O. No. 308 is justified by
some COMPELLING STATE INTEREST
and that it is NARROWLY DRAWN . A.O.
No. 308 is predicated on two
considerations:
(1) the need to provide our citizens and
foreigners with the facility to
conveniently transact business with
basic service and social security
providers and other government
instrumentalities and
(2) the need to reduce, if not totally
eradicate, fraudulent transactions and
misrepresentations by persons seeking
basic services.
It is debatable whether these interests are
compelling enough to warrant the
issuance of A.O. No. 308. BUT WHAT IS
NOT ARGUABLE IS THE BROADNESS,
THE VAGUENESS, THE OVERBREADTH
OF A.O. NO. 308 WHICH IF
IMPLEMENTED WILL PUT OUR
PEOPLE'S RIGHT TO PRIVACY IN CLEAR
AND PRESENT DANGER.
The heart of A.O. No. 308 lies in its Section
4 which provides for a Population
Reference Number (PRN) as a "common
reference number to establish a linkage
among concerned agencies" through the
use of "Biometrics Technology" and
"computer application designs." A.O. No.
308 should also raise our antennas for a
further look will show that it does not
state whether encoding of data is limited

SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DE TORRES, RECHEL

Page | 17
 SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

to biological information alone for
identification purposes.
In fact, the Solicitor General claims
that the adoption of the Identification
Reference System will contribute to
the "generation of population data for
development planning." This is an
admission that the PRN will not be used
solely for identification but the
generation of other data with remote
relation to the avowed purposes of A.O.
No. 308. Clearly, the indefiniteness of
A.O. No. 308 can give the government
the roving authority to store and
retrieve information for a purpose
other than the identification of the
individual through his PRN.
The potential for misuse of the data to be
gathered under A.O. No. 308 cannot be
underplayed as the dissenters do.
Pursuant to said administrative order, an
individual must present his PRN every
time he deals with a government agency
to avail of basic services and security.
His transactions with the government
agency will necessarily be recorded —
whether it be in the computer or in the
documentary file of the agency. The
individual's file may include his
transactions for loan availments, income
tax returns, statement of assets and
liabilities, reimbursements for medication,
hospitalization, etc. The more frequent
the use of the PRN, the better the chance
of building a huge formidable
information base through the electronic
linkage of the files . The data may be
gathered for gainful and useful
government purposes; but the existence
of this vast reservoir of personal
information constitutes a covert
invitation to misuse, a temptation that
may be too great for some of our
authorities to resist. It does not provide
who shall control and access the data,
under what circumstances and for what
purpose. These factors are essential to
safeguard the privacy and guaranty the
integrity of the information. THERE ARE
ALSO NO CONTROLS
TO GUARD AGAINST LEAKAGE OF
INFORMATION. When the access code of
the control programs of the particular
computer system is broken, an intruder,
without fear of sanction or penalty, can
make use of the data for whatever
purpose, or worse, manipulate the data
stored within the system.
It is plain and the SC held that A.O. No.
308 falls short of assuring that personal
information which will be gathered about
our people will only be processed for
unequivocally specified purposes. The
lack of proper safeguards in this regard
of A.O. No. 308 may interfere with the
individual's liberty of abode and travel
by enabling authorities to track down
his movement; it may also enable
unscrupulous persons to access
confidential information and
circumvent the right against self-
incrimination; it may pave the way for

FRAPPUCI- NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

"We don’t measure a man’s success by how high he climbs BUT how high he BOUNCES when
he hits rock bottom."

SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DE TORRES, RECHEL

Page | 18
 SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

"fishing expeditions" by government Next, the Solicitor General urges the SC to

authorities and evade the right against
unreasonable searches and seizures. The
possibilities of abuse and misuse of the
PRN, biometrics and computer
technology are accentuated when we
consider that the individual lacks
control over what can be read or placed
on his ID, much less verify the
correctness of the data encoded. They
threaten the very abuses that the Bill of
Rights seeks to prevent.
The SC rejected the argument of the
Solicitor General that an individual has a
reasonable expectation of privacy with
regard to the National ID and the use of
biometrics technology as it stands on
quicksand. THE REASONABLENESS OF A
PERSON'S EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY
DEPENDS ON A TWO-PART TEST :
(1) whether by his conduct, the
individual has exhibited an expectation
of privacy; and (2) whether this
expectation is one that society
recognizes as reasonable. The factual
circumstances of the case determine the
reasonableness of the expectation .
However, other factors, such as customs,
physical surroundings and practices of a
particular activity, may serve to create or
diminish this expectation. The use of
biometrics and computer technology in
A.O. No. 308 does not assure the
individual of a reasonable expectation of
privacy.
FRAPPUCI- NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM
"We don’t measure a man’s success by how high he climbs BUT how high he BOUNCES when
he hits rock bottom."
validate A.O. No. 308's abridgment of the
right of privacy by using THE RATIONAL
RELATIONSHIP TEST . He stressed that
the purposes of A.O. No. 308 are:
(1) to streamline and speed up the
implementation of basic government
services,
(2) eradicate fraud by avoiding
duplication of services, and
(3) generate population data for
development planning.
He concludes that these purposes justify
the incursions into the right to privacy for
the means are rationally related to the
end. The SC was not impressed by the
argument.
In Morfe v. Mutuc, the SC upheld the
constitutionality of R.A. 3019, the Anti-
Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, as a valid
police power measure. We declared that
the law, in compelling a public officer to
make an annual report disclosing his
assets and liabilities, his sources of
income and expenses, did not infringe on
the individual's right to privacy. The law
was enacted to promote morality in
public administration by curtailing and
minimizing the opportunities for official
corruption and maintaining a standard of
honesty in the public service.
The same circumstances do not obtain in
the case at bar. For one, R.A. 3019 is a
statute, not an administrative order.
Secondly, R.A. 3019 itself is sufficiently

SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DE TORRES, RECHEL

Page | 19
 SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

detailed. The law is clear on what

practices were prohibited and
penalized, and it was narrowly drawn
to avoid abuses. In the case at bar, A.O.
No. 308 may have been impelled by a
worthy purpose, but, it cannot pass
constitutional scrutiny for it is not
narrowly drawn. They must
satisfactorily show the presence of
compelling state interests and that the
law, rule or regulation is narrowly
drawn to preclude abuses.
This approach is demanded by the 1987
Constitution whose entire matrix is
designed to protect human rights and to
prevent authoritarianism. In case of doubt,
the least we can do is to lean towards the
stance that will not put in danger the
rights protected by the Constitutions.
In the case at bar, the threat comes from
the executive branch of government
which by issuing A.O. No. 308 pressures
the people to surrender their privacy by
giving information about themselves on
the pretext that it will facilitate delivery
of basic services. Given the record-
keeping power of the computer, only the
indifferent fail to perceive the danger that
A.O. No. 308 gives the government the
power to compile a devastating dossier
against unsuspecting citizens.
Thus, the petition was GRANTED.
FRAPPUCI- NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM
"We don’t measure a man’s success by how high he climbs BUT how high he BOUNCES when
he hits rock bottom."
JOSE JESUS M. DISINI, JR., ET AL. v. THE
SECRETARY OF JUSTICE, ET AL., G.R. No.
203335, FEBRUARY 18, 2014
Constitutional law; Unsolicited commercial
communications, also known as “spam” is
entitled to protection under freedom of
expression. To prohibit the transmission
of unsolicited ads would deny a person
the right to read his emails, even
unsolicited commercial ads addressed to
him. Commercial speech is a separate
category of speech which is not accorded
the same level of protection as that given
to other constitutionally guaranteed
forms of expression but is nonetheless
entitled to protection. The State cannot
rob him of this right without violating the
constitutionally guaranteed freedom of
expression. Unsolicited advertisements
are legitimate forms of expression.
Criminal law; Cyberlibel under Section
4(c)(4) of the Cybercrime Law is
constitutional. The Court agrees with the
Solicitor General that libel is not a
constitutionally protected speech and that
the government has an obligation to
protect private individuals from
defamation. Indeed, cyberlibel is actually
not a new crime since Article 353, in
relation to Article 355 of the Penal Code,
already punishes it. In effect, Section
4(c)(4) above merely affirms that online
defamation constitutes “similar means”
for committing libel. But the Court’s
acquiescence goes only insofar as the

SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DE TORRES, RECHEL

Page | 20
 SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

cybercrime law penalizes the author of unconstitutional. It held that Section

the libelous statement or
article. Cyberlibel brings with it certain
intricacies, unheard of when the Penal
Code provisions on libel were
enacted. The culture associated with
internet media is distinct from that of
print.
Criminal law; Section 5 of the Cybercrime
Law that punishes “aiding or abetting”
libel on the cyberspace is a nullity. The
terms “aiding or abetting” constitute
broad sweep that generates chilling effect
on those who express themselves through
cyberspace posts, comments, and other
messages. Its vagueness raises
apprehension on the part of internet
users because of its obvious chilling effect
on the freedom of expression, especially
since the crime of aiding or abetting
ensnares all the actors in the cyberspace
front in a fuzzy way. What is more, as the
petitioners point out, formal crimes such
as libel are not punishable unless
consummated. In the absence of
legislation tracing the interaction of
netizens and their level of responsibility
such as in other countries, Section 5, in
relation to Section 4(c)(4) on Libel,
Section 4(c)(3) on Unsolicited
Commercial Communications, and Section
4(c)(2) on Child Pornography, cannot
stand scrutiny.
Case Summary and Outcome The
Supreme Court of Philippines declared
Sections 4(c)(3), 12, and 19 of
the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 as
FRAPPUCI- NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM
"We don’t measure a man’s success by how high he climbs BUT how high he BOUNCES when
he hits rock bottom."
4(c)(3) violated the right to freedom of
expression by prohibiting the electronic
transmission of unsolicited commercial
communications. It found Section 12 in
violation of the right to privacy because it
lacked sufficient specificity and
definiteness in collecting real-time
computer data. It struck down Section 19
of the Act for giving the government the
authority to restrict or block access to
computer data without any judicial
warrant.
DISINI VS SECRETARY OF JUSTICE
Facts
The case arises out of consolidated
petitions to the Supreme Court of the
Philippines on the constitutionality of
several provisions of the Cybercrime
Prevention Act of 2012, Act No. 10175.
The Petitioners argued that even though
the Act is the government’s platform in
combating illegal cyberspace activities, 21
separate sections of the Act violate their
constitutional rights, particularly the right
to freedom of expression and access to
information.
In February 2013, the Supreme Court
extended the duration of a temporary
restraining order against the government
to halt enforcement of the Act until the
adjudication of the issues.

SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DE TORRES, RECHEL

Page | 21
 SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

RULING: Justice Abad delivered the
Court’s opinion.
The government of Philippines adopted
the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012
for the purpose of regulating access to
and use of cyberspace. Several sections of
the law define relevant cyber crimes and
enable the government to track down and
penalize violators.
Among 21 challenged sections, the Court
declared Sections 4(c)(3), 12, and 19 of
the Act as unconstitutional.
Section 4(c)(3) prohibits the transmission
of unsolicited commercial electronic
communications, commonly known as
spams, that seek to advertise, sell, or offer
for sale of products and services unless
the recipient affirmatively consents, or
when the purpose of the communication
is for service or administrative
announcements from the sender to its
existing users, or “when the following
conditions are present: (aa) The
commercial electronic communication
contains a simple, valid, and reliable way
for the recipient to reject receipt of
further commercial electronic messages
(opt-out) from the same source; (bb) The
commercial electronic communication
does not purposely disguise the source of
the electronic message; and (cc) The
commercial electronic communication
does not purposely include misleading
information in any part of the message in
order to induce the recipients to read the
message.”
FRAPPUCI- NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM
"We don’t measure a man’s success by how high he climbs BUT how high he BOUNCES when
he hits rock bottom."
The government argued that unsolicited
commercial communications amount to
both nuisance and trespass because they
tend to interfere with the enjoyment of
using online services and that they enter
the recipient’s domain without prior
permission.
The Court first noted that spams are a
category of commercial speech, which
does not receive the same level of
protection as other constitutionally
guaranteed forms of expression ,”but is
nonetheless entitled to protection.” It
ruled that the prohibition on transmitting
unsolicited communications “would deny
a person the right to read his emails, even
unsolicited commercial ads addressed to
him.” Accordingly, the Court declared
Section4(c)(3) as unconstitutional.
Section 12 of the Act authorizes the law
enforcement without a court warrant “to
collect or record traffic data in real-time
associated with specified communications
transmitted by means of a computer
system.” Traffic data under this Section
includes the origin, destination, route,
size, date, and duration of the
communication, but not its content nor
the identity of users.
The Petitioners argued that such
warrantless authority curtails their civil
liberties and set the stage for abuse of
discretion by the government. They also
claimed that this provision violates the
right to privacy and protection from the

SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DE TORRES, RECHEL

Page | 22
 SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

government’s intrusion into online only their coded Internet Protocol (IP)
communications. addresses.”

According to the Court, since Section 12
may lead to disclosure of private
communications, it must survive the
rational basis standard of whether it is
narrowly tailored towards serving a
government’s compelling interest. The
Court found that the government did have
a compelling interest in preventing cyber
crimes by monitoring real-time traffic
data.
As to whether Section 12 violated the
right to privacy, the Court first recognized
that the right at stake concerned
informational privacy, defined as “the
right not to have private information
disclosed, and the right to live freely
without surveillance and intrusion.” In
determining whether a communication is
entitled to the right of privacy, the Court
applied a two-part test: (1) Whether the
person claiming the right has a legitimate
expectation of privacy over the
communication, and (2) whether his
expectation of privacy can be regarded as
objectively reasonable in the society.
Even though the Court ruled that real-
time traffic data under Section 12 does
not enjoy the objective reasonable
expectation of privacy, the existence of
enough data may reveal the personal
information of its sender or recipient,
against which the Section fails to provide
sufficient safeguard. The Court viewed
the law as “virtually limitless, enabling
law enforcement authorities to engage in
“fishing expedition,” choosing whatever
specified communication they want.”
Accordingly, the Court struck down
Section 12 for lack of specificity and
definiteness as to ensure respect for the
right to privacy.
Section 19 authorizes the Department of
Justice to restrict or block access to a
computer data found to be in violation of
the Act. The Petitioners argued that this
section also violated the right to freedom
of expression, as well as the constitutional
protection against unreasonable searches
and seizures.

The Court noted that internet users have The Court first recognized that computer
subjective reasonable expectation of data constitutes a personal property,
privacy over their communications entitled to protection against
transmitted online. However, it did not unreasonable searches and seizures. Also,
find the expectation as objectively the Philippines’ Constitution requires the
reasonable because traffic data sent government to secure a valid judicial
through internet “does not disclose the warrant when it seeks to seize a personal
actual names and addresses (residential property or to block a form of
or office) of the sender and the recipient, expression. Because Section 19
FRAPPUCI- NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM
"We don’t measure a man’s success by how high he climbs BUT how high he BOUNCES when
he hits rock bottom."

SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DE TORRES, RECHEL

Page | 23
 SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

precluded any judicial intervention, the EXCLUSIONARY RULE

Court found it unconstitutional.
In In Re: Wenceslao Laureta, 148 SCRA
382, letters addressed by a lawyer (of one
of the parties to a case) addressed to
Gaanan vs. IAC individual Justices of the Supreme Court
Q: What if private communication is in connection with the performance of
intercepted thru use of telephone line? their judicial functions, become part of
A: No. RA 4200 enumerates the judicial record and are a matter of
instances/modes of violation. concern for the entire Court — and thus,
Enumeration exclusive. are not covered by the constitutional
guarantee.
Q: Supposing 2 public officers privately
communicating thru cellpone was In People v. Albofera, 152 SCRA 123, a
intercepted without use of any tapping letter written by the accused to a witness
device but thru airwaves? which was produced by the witness
A: No violation. Enumeration in Section 1, during the trial is admissible in evidence;
RA4200 exclusive. it was not the result of an unlawful search,
nor through an unwarranted intrusion or
Exclusionary Rule invasion into the privacy of the accused. It
Stonehill vs. Diokno was produced by the recipient of the
letter who identified the same. Besides,
Q: Reason for inadmissibilty? there is nothing self-incriminatory in the
A: Only in case the prosecution which letter.
itself controls the seizing officials knows
that it cannot profit by their wrong, will
that wrong be repressed. (Judge Learned
Hand)
ALBA - NOTES
Q: Can Exclusionary Rule apply to
principal as well as to secondary
evidence? Q – Under what circumstances may the
A: Exclusionary Rule applies to principal privacy of communications and
evidence. Fruit of Poisonous Tree correspondence be violated?
Doctrine applies to secondary evidence.
(People vs. Allicando) ANS – The constitution says that the
privacy of communications and
correspondence shall be inviolable except
upon lawful order of the court, or when
FRAPPUCI- NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM
"We don’t measure a man’s success by how high he climbs BUT how high he BOUNCES when
he hits rock bottom."

SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DE TORRES, RECHEL

Page | 24
 SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

public safety or order requires otherwise her integrity or right to privacy as an

as prescribed by law. ( Sec. 3, Article Iii
1987 Constitution )
Q – Cecilia Zulueta, the wife of Doctor
Alfredo Martin, forcibly opened the
drawers and cabinet of her husband’s
clinic and took 157 documents
consisting of private communications
between the doctor and his alleged
paramours, greeting cards, checks, and
diaries. They were seized for use in an
action for legal separation and to
disqualify him from the practice of his
profession. Are the pieces of evidence
admissible? Why?
ANS – The constitutional injunction
declaring privacy of communication and
correspondence to be inviolable is no less
applicable simply because it is the wife
who feels aggrieved by her husband’s
infidelity and who is a party against
whom the constitutional provision is to be
enforced. The only exception is, if there is
a lawful order of the court or when public
safety or order requires otherwise, as
prescribed by law. Any violation of this
provision renders the evidence obtained
inadmissible for any purpose in any
proceeding.
The intimacies between husband and wife
do not justify any one of them breaking
the cabinets and drawers of the other and
in ransacking them for any telltale
evidence of marital infidelity. A person, by
contracting marriage, does not shed his or
individual and the constitutional
protection is ever available to him or to
her. (Zulueta vs. Court of Appeals, et al.,
68 SCAD 440 Feb. 20, 1996)
Q – If a spouse files a petition for
annulment of marriage on the ground
of psychological incapacity, can he/she
testify on a confidential psychiatric
evaluation report on the defendant?
Why?
ANS – Yes. In a petition for annulment of
marriage grounded on psychological
incapacity, a confidential psychiatric
evaluation report on the defendant wife
may be testified to by the plaintiff
husband without offending the privileged
communication rule. (Krohn vs. Court of
Appeals, 53 SCAD 250, June 14, 1994)
Q - Edgard Krohn filed a petition for
annulment of marriage on the ground
of psychological incapacity against his
wife, Ma. Paz Fernandez. When he
testified, he did it so on a confidential
psychiatric evaluation report, hence,
the wife objected invoking the rule on
privileged communication between
physicians and patients. Is the
objection tenable? Why?
ANS – No, because the witness testifying
on the report is the husband who initiated
the annulment proceedings, not the

FRAPPUCI- NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

"We don’t measure a man’s success by how high he climbs BUT how high he BOUNCES when
he hits rock bottom."

SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DE TORRES, RECHEL

Page | 25
 SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

physician who prepared the report. Senate. As a taxpayer, and as a member of

Plainly and clearly, this does not fall
within the claimed prohibition. Neither
can his testimony be considered a
circumvention of the prohibition because
his testimony cannot have the force and
effect of the testimony of the physician
who examined the patient and executed
the report. (Krohn vs. Court of Appeals,
52 SCAD 250, June 14, 1994)
Q – Senator Blas Ople questioned A.O
No. 308 entitled “ Adoption of a
National Computerized Identification
Reference System” on two (2)
constitutional grounds: (1) It is
usurpation of the power of congress to
legislate; (2) it impermissibly intrudes
on our citizenry’s protected zone of
privacy.
1. Whether Senator Ople has a
standing to sueand whether the
case is justiciable.
2. Whether A.O. No. 308 is a law,
and hence, beyond the power of
the President to issue. It was
contended that the order
establishes a system of
identification that is all-
encompassing in scope, affects
the life and liberty of every
Filipino and foreign resident
and it violates the right to
Privacy. Rule on the contention.
ANS – Yes. Senator Ople has a standing.
He is a distinguished member of the
FRAPPUCI- NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM
"We don’t measure a man’s success by how high he climbs BUT how high he BOUNCES when
he hits rock bottom."
the GSIS, he can also impugn the legality
of the misalignment of the public funds
and the misuse of GSIS funds to
implement the AO. (ople vs Torres, 96
SCAD 587, GR no. 127685, July 23 1998)
AO No. 308 involves a subject that is not
appropriate to be covered by an
administrative order. Administrative
orders are acts of the president which
relate to particular aspects of
governmental operation in pursuance og
his duties as administrative head shall be
promulgated in administrative orders.
(Sec 3, Chapter 2, Title I, Book III,
Administrative Code of 1987)
They must be in harmony in the law and
should be for the sole purpose of
implementing the law and carrying out
the legislative policy. We reject the
argument that A.O no. 308 implements
the legislative policy of the Administrative
Code of 1987. The code is a general law
and “incorporates in a unified document
the major structural, functional and
procedural principles of governance” and
“embodies changes in administrative
structures procedures designed to serve
the people.”
A.O No. 308 is not a mere implementation
of the administrative code of 1987 as it
established for the first time a National
Computerized Identification Reference
System. Such a system requires a delicate
adjustment of various contending state
policies, the primacy of National Security,
the extent of privacy against dossier

SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DE TORRES, RECHEL

Page | 26
 SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA

gathering by government, the choice of Zones of privacy are likewise recognized

policies, etc. Since the order redefines the
parameters of some basic rights of our
people in relation to the state, it ought to
be covered by a law.
It cannot be contended that A.O no. 308 is
not a law, as it confers no right, imposes
no duty, affords no protection, and
creates no office. But the SC said that
under such order, a citizen cannot
transact business with the government
agencies delivering basic services without
the ID, hence, no citizen will refuse to get
such ID, hence, it cannot be said that
imposes no duty and gives no right ( Ople
Vs. Torres )
Q – State the zones of privacy in our
law
ANS – The right of privacy is recognized
and enshrined in several provisions of our
constitution (Morfe vs. Mutuc, supra). It is
recognized in Section 3 (1) of the Bill of
Rights:
Section 2 – Right against unreasonable
searches and seizure
Section 3 – Privacy of communication and
Correspondence
Section 8 – Right to Form Association
Section 6 – Liberty of Abode and travel
Section 17 – Right Against Self
Incrimination
and protected in our laws. The civil Code
provides that “every person shall respect
the dignity, personality, privacy and peace
of mind of his neighbors and other persons”
and “punishes as actionable torts several
acts by a person of meddling and prying
into the privacy of another.” (Article 26,
New Civil Code).
It also holds a public officer or employee
or any private individual liable for
damages for any violation of the rights
and liberties of another person. (Article
32, New Civil Code), and “recognizes the
letters and other private communication.”
Article 723, New Civil Code.
The revised Civil Code makes if a crime
the violation of secrets by an officer
(Article 229, Revised Penal Code, The
revelation of trade and industrial secrets
(Article 290-292, Revised Penal Code),
and trespass to dwelling, (Article 280,
Revised Penal Code).
Invasion of Privacy is an offense in special
laws like the Anti-wiretapping Law (RA
4200); The intellectual property Code
(RA 8293).
The rules of court on privilege
communication, likewise recognizes the
privacy of certain information (Section 24,
Rule 130).

FRAPPUCI- NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

"We don’t measure a man’s success by how high he climbs BUT how high he BOUNCES when
he hits rock bottom."

SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DE TORRES, RECHEL

Page | 27